Talk:General guide to RA
If you have something useful to say that will help this article, please do add the suggestions here or just edit the article yourself. If you are here to say "RA is not real PvP, you should go to HA or GvG" then please allow me to point you in the direction of Guild Wars Guru, where you belong. VegaObscura 19:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT) It is totally possible to enter RA with a team if you know how to do it. Random Arena article used to list it as an exploit, I think. Also I am curious why we need a guide to RA, everyone knows it's joke PvP... :S A generic "guide to PvP" would be better, imho. (T/ ) 19:15, 28 March 2007 (CDT) :Yes it is possible to enter RA with a team, but almost no one does it. RA is not joke PvP, it is the highest level of PvP you can perform without having to assemble a team. If I'm not mistaken there is already a guide to PvP, and regardless RA has some special things that should be noted. It is true that winning in RA is mostly up to luck giving you good or bad allies, but adding an article should raise the level of RA players by at least a little. Whenever I see an inexperienced player in RA I take it upon myself to take them aside, and help them. This usually consists if taking them out to the Isle of the Nameless and having them attempt to fight the masters to find that they are weaker than an NPC. VegaObscura 19:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT) ::Hmm "weaker than an NPC" well they only need to do PvE to know that, NPCs pwn most human players at higher levels (thinking DoA etc here). But anyway RA is joke PvP, you can win glad points with Echo Mending. It isn't random and in fact quite a few people do assemble teams - when I enter and the next five teams are all SS Ele, ZB Monk, Impaler Sin, and Dragon Slash Warriors, I think that means something. :\ Moreover I don't see how not being able to assemble a team makes RA better than GvG or anything. You forget that the enemy can assemble a team as well - leading to much stronger opponents with actual tactics and such. (T/ ) 19:40, 28 March 2007 (CDT) :::You can win glad points, but your number of glad points will vastly drop. I'm willing to bet you don't have many glad points do you? Less than 50 undoubtably. Not being able to assemble a team is not a good thing, it is just a good way to save time. Also PVE is totally different from PVP, and people almost never use the same builds in PVE that they would in PVP. In the isle of the nameless, you take your PVP build and make sure that it can kill a player. And I think you just assume that the enemy team is set up because they are relatively balanced. VegaObscura 19:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT) ::::What does me having glad points have to do with anything? The point is that anything works in RA, which makes it a silly form of PvP entirely based on luck of the draw - not skill. "Saving time" is also not a reason that RA is better. Do you prefer quantity PvP to quality PvP? Testing against the Masters on Isle of the Nameless is not a great way to test if a build can kill a player. You know every skill they have and so can design a build specifically to counter them; all of the Masters have very focused, specialized builds, unlike what you would expect in most RA builds (flexibility, reliable self-heal, condition removal, hex removal/counters). Masters all have particular behavior patterns - for example the Survivor one does little but kite, the Healer one does nothing but heal, etc. Unless a PvP build can take on almost all the Masters, it's not really a great test. (Exceptions to solely anti-caster or anti-melee builds, of course...) (T/ ) 19:54, 28 March 2007 (CDT) :::::No anything does not work in RA. The fact that you have that view and few gladiator points shows that. It is true that the masters have very specialized builds. As I mentioned in the article, the key to winning in RA is to be able to solo a healer. The master of healing specializes in healing. Need I spell this out for you more? VegaObscura 20:56, 28 March 2007 (CDT) ::::::The Master of Healing uses Peace and Harmony, GG. I don't know where you got any idea that I have "few gladiator points", and that view of RA is the majority view, or perhaps even the de facto view. More than 75% of players would agree to it, even hardcore RA fans. Anything works in RA. (T/ ) 18:44, 29 March 2007 (CDT) :::::::I use Peace and Harmony and have earned over 100 gladiator points with it. How many do you have? I got the idea that you have "few gladiator points" by the way you think. Care to tell us how many you DO have? No? Didn't think so. Oh and include a screenshot, because at this point I'm sure you're ready to make things up. 75% of players that don't play in RA would agree that RA is for noobs. About 95% of people that have over 50 gladiator points will tell you anything does NOT work. You can get an occasional gladiator point, but it will be much more rare, and result in not having as many as the good players. Its like saying anything will work in HA. Your allies can have good builds and yours be totally useless, and you will occasionally come across a match you will win. I don't hear anyone saying 'anything works in HA'. The same goes for GVG and every other kind of PVP and PVE. VegaObscura 00:08, 30 March 2007 (CDT) ::::::::If all you care about is +dicksize then you can go ahead and declare yourself the winner here. I really could care less about Gladiator points, since it's been shown that they really don't mean much...same for Rank. The only true thing one can claim from an abundance of Glad points or Rank is time spent playing the game, which is...an achievement? Yesh. Btw, notice how I never demanded that you post a screenshot of your gladiator points. To quote you, "at this point I'm sure you're ready to make things up". ^^ ::::::::Comparing RA to HA, GvG, AB, CM...etc. is a fallacious argument for a few reasons. ::::::::One: the very basic and simple fact of team formation. In RA, one strives for self-sufficiency if at all possible, and the mantra "Don't rely on the Monk" should always be remembered. Naturally there are exceptions, like your typical SF Ele or a Dragonslasher (though the latter could go /Mo for Mending Touch I suppose), and it's listed in those builds that yes, lack of self-defense opens up a lot of counters. Nevertheless, the amount of responsibility placed on each individual player is much greater in RA than in organized PvP...even comparing to CM, because in CM you can (usually) expect a large showing. And if noone out of 100 persons is a Monk? Well then that is extraordinarily bad luck. Finding one on an RA team is lucky, to be honest...hence, why builds designed for RA take more care to self-preservation than is normally done for PvP. ::::::::Two: number of contestants. RA is 4v4 and will probably stay like that forever. All other types of PvP have larger party sizes. In a larger party, with organized opposition, there's less leeway for error. You can't just slap together a "Random" bunch of builds and expect a good team. They might work well individually but not together! Non-RA PvP requires teamwork and coordination. In short, it takes skill. Unless you have truly skilled teammates, one cannot sit around in TA/HA/GvG whatver and Echo Mending - your way to victory...as you can in RA. Each person is a part of the team with a specialized role, and no crap is tolerated. This weeds out a lot, but not all of, the inexperienced PvP junkies who think it's fine to lose in RA "because you can just hit the button and enter again". These kinds of people are stuck in RA because they do not take PvP seriously and are content to settle for the slot-machine randomness and luck-of-the-draw-based wins, none of which reflects whatsoever on how good someone is at PvP. Hell, you can go in with an empty skillbar and win 20 straight in RA. Not so in any other kind of (except perhaps CM/AB, because of sheer numbers). ::::::::Finally, three: To quote you. "Its like saying anything will work in HA. Your allies can have good builds and yours be totally useless, and you will occasionally come across a match you will win. I don't hear anyone saying 'anything works in HA'. The same goes for GVG and every other kind of PVP and PVE." Right, and how does this do anything to promote RA, or undermine the fact that anything works in it? I don't hear anyone saying 'anything works in HA', either. Know why? Because it's not true. ;) Nor does it hold water for GvG and every other kind of PvP. (It does for PvE, because...well that's a whole other issue) Noone wants to go to all the effort of forming a good team in TA/HA, only to see themselves lose to Wammos because the Monk decided to test their Unyielding Aura/CoP build. Anything does not go in TA/HA/GvG. If you want a good team, you've got to have a good, or at least mediocre build. If you want to win with a bad build or no build at all, you are just forcing the TA/HA/GvG into RA rules - you are changing the entire win/lose probability to a mere dice-throwing game, where your actions have little to no influence on the outcome. But the thing is, your chances of finding a team that competes as well, if not better "one man down", or the chances of facing opponents who are so stupid as to lose while you Frenzy Healsig, are small. In RA you expect a certain level of asshattery and general incompetence, which is largely why anything works in RA. Go past that, though, to higher PvP, and the system of simply clicking "Enter Battle" and hoping for a win becomes ludicrous. ::::::::In closing, I'll admit that with GvG one can afford to experiment because everyone's a guildmate and friend, and if you agree to scrimmage with a friendly guild as well...then you get games like Dodgeball. They aren't serious PvP, to be sure, but they are nevertheless a far step above RA. At least games like Dodgeball, or even "1v1", rely on skill and playing ability rather than blind luck. Sorry, but at the end of the day RA is still the PvP arena for the masses, and it shows. (T/ ) 04:23, 31 March 2007 (CDT) "one cannot sit around in TA/HA/GvG whatver and Echo Mending - your way to victory...as you can in RA" Wow, no wonder you have almost no gladiator points. Try it. Go into RA with echo mending and see how many you win. So it seems you haven't played RA much, as at least 95% of the time, you will lose 3v4. There is no way you are going to win 20 matches in a row with echo mending. You mention team size and how 'In a larger party, with organized opposition, there's less leeway for error.'. Think about that for a moment. In RA you are 1/4 of the team. In GVG you are 1/8 of the team. Just think about it for a moment. The fact of the opposition being an organized team does come into effect, but the team size is just the opposite, it is against your argument. Oh and "in closing" as you say, GVG > RA. Almost everyone would rather GVG than RA, but RA is just as much real PVP as GVG is, and is even more challenging due to the fact that you will have to play under direct pressure (you have a higher chance of being hit than in GVG, unless you're a monk) and your team isn't going to last long before one side is dead, so whether or not you make the kill means a lot. VegaObscura 05:41, 31 March 2007 (CDT) Anything works in RA. I HAVE won glads w/ an Echo Mender. I am not kidding lol. Glads really mean nothing. You can be glad 3, and still be considered less then H3. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 03:30, 28 May 2007 (CDT) May I asked in what way this page is misformatted? VegaObscura 12:32, 29 March 2007 (CDT) :I'll ask again, please tell me how it is misformatted or fix it yourself. The notes in the tag don't help. VegaObscura 00:13, 30 March 2007 (CDT) ::It's been about 3 days and you have said nothing. Removing the tag. VegaObscura 03:39, 31 March 2007 (CDT) "If you are playing offense and start taking heavy damage, do not run away from your monk. Run towards your monk and behind it." Umm, I don't think the guide should encourage people to bring enemies back to the monk. Seiryoku 08:46, 30 March 2007 (CDT) :Good point. Removed that line. VegaObscura 14:26, 30 March 2007 (CDT) Many players who lack the abilities to win in Team Arenas will synchronize entering RA to be on the same team with a friend. These players should be disregarded as they usually aren't a threat. I've seen plenty of high ranked guilds sync, and saying that they 'usually aren't a threat' isn't very accurate :p Tycn 04:14, 28 May 2007 (CDT) :That's why it says usually. Its usually just that think 'these people are gay they suck' when in reality they are using something like a touch ranger and expecting their team to win it for them, so they get an ally (usually another touch ranger) to try and help. Soon after they decide all PvP is gay and go back to PvE where they belong. VegaObscura 06:42, 28 May 2007 (CDT) ::I've removed the line entirely. It seems to be an unfounded claim with the connotation that such people are poor players. There's no evidence behind the claim of friends "usually" not being a threat. --Scottie theNerd 06:04, 23 July 2007 (CDT) :::Alright, it's been reverted already. Evidence then? --Scottie theNerd 06:05, 23 July 2007 (CDT) ::::You are trying to form a team in RA. This shows you prefer playing against weaker opponents as you do not think you possess the ability to win in TA. Plus to sync in requires them to leave a bunch of other teams with 3 players, and leaving on joining is pretty lame tbh. Lord of all tyria 06:14, 23 July 2007 (CDT) :::::Again, evidence? The wording of the paragraph seems to imply that one or two people have had poor experiences and want to voice their opinions. Yes, players who quit because they're not with friends are lame. However, that does not mean that "many syncing players lack ability". It could, but there's nothing in the article that substantiates that claim, and that is what I am disputing. There is no connection between PvP players with lame habits and their apparent "threat level". It's an opinion, and has no place in the article. --Scottie theNerd 06:30, 23 July 2007 (CDT) ::::::So how am I supposed to give evidence? I don't screenshot it when people sync teams in RA then act like complete idiots and run poor builds. Most syncers I have played with or against have been pretty poor players, although there are exceptions. Lord of all tyria 06:35, 23 July 2007 (CDT) :::::::If there is no evidence, the line should be removed. Such a statement would need to be verified by a substantial number of players witnessing the same thing and coming to the same conclusion, as one player's experience is never the definitive source of Wiki content. As pointed out earlier by another editor, it's not an accurate statement. I could claim that 80% of RA players aren't a real threat, and I'd probably be right, but then what would be considered to be a real threat? It scales down, hence the common conception that RA is "inferior". --Scottie theNerd 06:41, 23 July 2007 (CDT) ::::::::Your arguments have nearly convinced me, while mine haven't convinced you, so for the moment it looks like removing it is the thing to do. Lord of all tyria 06:46, 23 July 2007 (CDT) Armor + Health How established is the 600hp build with minor runes with "experienced" players? I'm not the best RA player, but I'm not seeing the logic in reducing a build's effectiveness for more health. Some builds benefit from higher HP (e.g. monks, melee), while others (e.g. elementalists) get more benefit from using higher level runes. Am I incorrect on this assumption? Also: Having large amounts of armor and health will not help much because your foes will simply choose one of your allies to attack instead of you. - Is this accurate? Players are targeted based on threat rather than HP/Armor. If you're going to take damage (which you will), it would be of utmost importance to get as much health and armor without sacrificing effectiveness. Why wouldn't you want more of each, especially when foes are going to target you eventually? -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue) 14:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC) : "A good amount of health is above 485." THat's only using 1 Survivor insignia!! I think that should be changed to 585, or maybe 550.But 485? That's too low! The Paintballer (T/ ) 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC) ::I'm looking at "over 500" for a reasonable minimum as far as the article is concerned. Some builds don't need huge amounts of HP, and it's still possible to play many builds on approximately 500HP without escalating the risk factor, especially for builds who are not exposed to clear, direct threats. A Warrior or Assassin need way more than 500hp; a Ranger may be just fine with 495. Specific examples aside, as the purpose of the article is to provide general advice to players, setting a reasonably generous "minimum" of "over 500" seems acceptable to me. Players can still win with less than 500, but it may prove to be more difficult. What do you think? -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue) 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC) :::I pretty much never drop below 580. — Skakid9090 02:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC) When I mentioned "large amounts of armor and health", that means things like Endure Pain with Defy Pain, and Armor of Earth with Stoneflesh Aura. I suggest against using more than one superior rune on any build that does not have excessive defense. VegaObscura 11:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Tactics? shouldnt there be a section on tactics?? anyone who says theres no such thing isnt paying attention to the players on either team...theres a clear pattern of movement that you can plan and react to in real time that i think would be well to discuss......hope someone more experienced than me at RA can see this and comment :p :It's RA. You can learn how certain popular RA builds work and how to counter them, but I wouldn't want to document that since it gets into builds etc. General advice like "if other team is not moving from one spot, they probably set traps" is kind of common sense. (T/ ) 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC) ::Thats exactly whats wrong with people doing RA....everyone assumes its all about the builds, im talking about Tactics...on certain maps theres certain advantages to holding a position or allowing/luring the other team to take up a position. I won plenty of battles simply by forcing opponent teams into responding to my teams position and losing as a result of it. it just takes a bit of observation...theres plenty of hidden tells that allow you to win even if your team is weak on offense, defense, or plain unbalanced. its more than "commone sense" and thats a relative "sense" too...otherwise everyone would have a rez :p people should be paying attention to how their opponents move...u might say its just a game, or its RA theres no plan...but there actually is! all im saying...if you use time, space, and the fact that most people are impatient to your advantage you stand a better chance of winning against ANY team. thats tactics...having a plan for the immediate fight, every map has its own technique and every team has their own too..but theyre consistent for each map and team makeup. u get what im referring to by tactics now Entropy? :::"try to lure the other team into Stone Spores/Coral environmental effects" or "use height advantage" or "don't split because they split" is good tactics. You should write something up and add it to the article since I don't quite get what you mean...yes, there are dumb people who don't take a rez (but you should assume they do), and if people are willing to listen and play "for real" you can out-maneuver the other team (assuming they have no leadership), etc. (T/ ) 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) ::::If you win by playing smart, your opponents are either dumb or impatient, whichever is most prominent in the opposing team. Impatient people are not keen on waiting for several minutes because you're in some advantage and you just /afk and dumb people c-space. Have a pick. ::::No, really. Such tactics as getting a height advantage and mashing the opponents into a chokepoint are general tactics. Heck, it's even usable in PvE. It's not specific to RA. Rather; it's by-one least common in RA, rivaled by PvE (c-space-way). Even in CM there's use of Height advantage (huge ledge + BA = 150 damage + burning = gg Turtle), and AB has a crapload of small passageways and bridges. --- -- (s)talkpage 19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)